• Tiada Hasil Ditemukan



Academic year: 2022




(1)FYP FHPK THE EFFECT OF CORONAVIRUS DISEASE i. i. i. i. i. i. (COVID-19) RISK PERCEPTION ON i. i. i. BEHAVIOURAL INTENTION TOWARDS UNTACT i. i. i. i. TOURISM IN MALAYSIA i. i. By NUR AZIFAH BINTI SAHRAN (H18A0365) i. i. i. i. NORIZZAIDAH BINTI AHMAD ZAWAWI (H18A0337) i. i. i. i. MOONY SALENEY ANAK SAWAN (H18A0745) i. i. i. i. MUHAMMAD SYAHRUL FAHMY BIN ABD RAZAB (H18A0271) i. i. i. i. i. i. Bachelor of Entrepreneur Tourism with Hons i. i. i. i. i. A report submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of i. i. i. i. i. i. i. i. i. i. Bachelor of Entrepreneur Tourism with Hons i. i. i. i. i. Faculty of Hospitality, Tourism and Wellness UNIVERSITI MALAYSIA KELANTAN i. i. i. i. i. i. 2020. i. i. i. i.

(2) DECLARATION I hereby certify that the work embodied in this report is the result of the original research and has not been submitted for a higher degree to any other university or Institution.. √. OPEN ACCESS. I agree that my report is to be made immediately available as hardcopy or online open access (full-text). CONFIDENTIAL. (Contains confidential information under the Official Secret Act 1972) *. RESTRICTED. (Contains restricted information as specified by the organisation where the research was done) *. I acknowledge that University Malaysia Kelantan reserves the right as follow.. The report is the property of University Malaysia Kelantan The library of University Malaysia Kelantan has the right to make copies for research only The Library has the right to make copies of the report for academic exchange. Signature. Signature of Supervisor. Group Representative:. Name:. Moony Saleney Anak Sawan. Puan Nurzehan Binti Abu Bakar Date: 20/6/2020. Date: 20/6/2020. Note: *If the report is CONFIDENTIAL OR RESTRICTED, please attach the letter from the organisation stating the period and the reasons for confidentiality and restriction. i. FYP FHPK. APPENDIX iB: iDECLARATION.

(3) In icarrying iout iour iinvestigation, iwe ihad ito irequire ithe iassistance iand irule iof ia ifew i. well-respected ipeople iwho ideserved iour imost iliberal iappreciation. iThe icompletion iof. i. this iis iasking ius ifor imuch ienchantment. iWe ineed ito iexpress iour ideep iand iheartfelt. i. gratitude ito iour iinvestigative ileader, iMrs iNurzehan iBinti iAbu iBakar, ito igive ius igreat. i. rule ithrough ivarious idiscussions. iHer idynamism, iher ivision, iher iearnestness, iand iher. i. inspiration ihave ideeply idriven ius. iShe iadvised ius ito icarry iout ithe iinvestigation iand iprove. i. the iinvestigation iworks ias iplainly ias iconceivable.. It iwas ia ifantastic igain iand ipleasure ito ido isomething iunder ihis iguidance. iWe iare i. incredibly igrateful ito iour iguardians ifor itheir iadoration, iprayers, icaring, iand ipenance ito. i. teach iand iprepare iour ifuture. iIn iaddition, iwe iwould ilike ito iincrease iour isincere igratitude. i. to iall ithose iwho ihave idirected ius idirectly iand iby iimplication iin icomposing ithis iinquiry.. i. Numerous iindividuals, iparticularly iour iclassmates iand igroup iindividuals, ihave imade. i. valuable icomments ion ithis istudy, imotivating ius ito imove iforward iwith iour iresearch. iWe. i. would ilike ito ithank iall iindividuals ifor ihelping idirectly iand ithrough iinvolvement iin. i. completing ithis ithinking.. Finally, iwe iwould ilike ito ithank ithe iinstructors ifor idistinguishing ius iand i. understanding iour itime ias ian iunderstudy ibetween ilessons iand ienquiry.. ii. FYP FHPK. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.

(4) PAGE TITLE PAGE CANDIDATE’S DECLARATION. i. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. ii iii – iv. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES. v-vi. LIST OF FIGURES. vi. LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS. vii. ABSTRACT AND ABSTRAK. viii - xi. CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1. Introduction. 1.2. Background of the Study. 1–4. 1.3. Problem Statement. 4–6. 1.4. Research Objectives. 6. 1.5. Research Questions. 6. 1.6. Significance of the study. 1.7. Definition of Terms. 1.8. 1. 7–8. 1.7.1. Perceived Risk. 8. 1.7.2. Untact Tourism. 8. 1.7.3. Behavioural Intention. 9. Summary. 9. CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1. Introduction. 10. 2.2. Literature Review. 10. 2.3. 2.2.1. Untact Tourism. 10 - 12. 2.2.2. Behavioural Intention. 12. 2.2.3. Affective Perceived Risk. 13. 2.2.4. Cognitive Perceived Risk. 14 – 15. 2.2.5. Emotional Perceived Risk. 16 – 17. Hypothesis of the Study 2.3.1. 18. Relationship between Relationship Between Cognitive Perceived Risk And Behavioural Intentions. 2.3.2. Relationship Between Affective Perceived Risk And. iii. 18. FYP FHPK. TABLE iOF iCONTENT.

(5) 2.3.3. Relationship Between Emotional Perceived Risk And 19 – 20. Behavioural Intentions 2.4. Conceptual Framework. 20 – 21. 2.5. Summary. 21 - 22. CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1. Introduction. 3.2. Research Design. 3.3. Population. 3.4. Sample Size. 3.5. Sampling Method. 3.6. Data Collection Procedure. 3.7. Research Instrument. 28. 3.8. Data Analysis. 29. 3.8.1. Descriptive Statistic. 29. 3.8.2. Reliability Test. 30. 3.8.3. Spearman Correlation. 3.9. 23 23 – 24 24 24 – 25 26 26 – 27. 31 – 32 32 – 33. Summary. CHAPTER 4: RESULT AND DISCUSSION 4.1. Introduction. 34. 4.2. Response rate. 34 – 35. 4.3. Respondent’s Demographic. 35 – 40. 4.4. Result of Reliability Test. 40 – 42. 4.5. Result of Descriptive Analysis. 42 – 43. 4.5.1. Overall Mean Score for Variables. 43 - 44. 4.5.2. Descriptive Analysis for Independent Variables (IV), Cognitive Risk, Affective Risk And Emotional 45 – 47. Risk Perception 4.5.3. Descriptive Analysis for Dependent Variable (DV), The Impact Of Behavioural Intention Towards Untact Tourism 48 – 49. In Malaysia 4.6. Result of Spearman’s Correlation 4.6.1. 49. Correlation between cognitive perceived risk and behavioural intention towards untact tourism.. iv. 49– 50. FYP FHPK. 18 – 19. Behavioural Intentions.

(6) Correlation between affective perceived risk and behavioural intention towards untact tourism. 4.6.3. Correlation between emotional perceived risk and behavioural intention towards untact tourism. 4.7. 51 – 52. Summary. 52 – 53 54. CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 5.1. Introduction 5.1.1. 5.2. 55 55 – 56. Research Objective. Findings. 56. 5.2.1. Discussion on Objective 1. 57 – 58. 5.2.2. Discussion on Objective 2. 59 – 61. 5.2.3. Discussion on Objective 3. 61 – 63. 5.3. Limitations. 63 – 64. 5.4. Recommendation. 64 - 65. 5.5. Summary. 66 – 67. REFERENCES. 68 – 73. APPENDICES. 74 – 78. v. FYP FHPK. 4.6.2.

(7) Tables. Titles. Page. Table i2.1. The iRelationship iBetween iResearch iQuestion iand i Hypothesis. 22. Table i3.1. Krejcie iand iMorgan iModel i. 25. Table i3.2. The iLikert iScale. 28. Table 3.3. Rule Of Thumb Cronbach’s Alpha. 30. Rule iof iThumb iof iCorrelation iCoefficient iSize. 32. Table i3.5. The iSummary iof iResearch iQuestion iand iData iAnalysis. 33. Table i4.1. Total iNumber iof iQuestionnaire. 35. Table i4.2. Respondent iDemographic iProfile i- iGender. 35. Table i4.3. Respondent iDemographic iProfile i- iAge. 36. Table i4.4. Respondent iDemographic iProfile i- iMarital iStatus. 37. Table i4.5. Respondent iDemographic iProfile i- iIncome. 38. Table i4.6. Respondent iDemographic iProfile i- iEducation. 39. Table i4.7. Rule iof iThumb iCronbach’s iAlpha. Table i4.8. Result iof iReliability iCoefficient iAlpha iFor iIndependent. Table i3.4. I. iiI. 41. Variable iand iDependent iVariable. 41. Table i4.9. The iOverall iMean iScore iOn iEach iVariable iand iDimension. 44. Table i4.10. Descriptive iAnalysis iFor iIndependent iVariable i- iCognitive i Risk iPerception. Table i4.11. 45. Descriptive iAnalysis iFor iIndependent iVariable i- iAffective i Risk iPerception. Table i4.12. 46. Descriptive iAnalysis iFor iIndependent iVariable i- iEmotional Risk iPerception. Table i4.13. 47. Descriptive iFor iDependent iVariable i- iBehavioural i Intention iTowards iUntact iTourism. Table i4.14. Correlation iBetween iPerceived iRisk iand iBehavioural iIntention i Towards iUntact iTourism. Table i4.15. 48. 50. Correlation iBetween iAffective iPerceived iRisk iand iBehavioural i vi. FYP FHPK. LIST iOF iTABLE.

(8) Table i4.16. 51. Correlation iBetween iEmotional iPerceived iRisk iBehavioural Intention. 52. Table i4.17. Summary iResult iof iSpearman iCorrelation iCoefficient. 53. Table i5.1. Discussion ion iObjective i1 i- iCognitive iRisk iPerception. 57. Table i5.2. Discussion ion iObjective i2 i- iAffective iRisk iPerception. 59. Table i5.3. Discussion ion iObjective i3 i- iEmotional iRisk iPerception. 61. LIST iOF iFIGURES. Figures. Title. Page. Figure i2.1. Conceptual iFramework iAdapted iFrom iTheory iof iPlanned Behavioural. 20. Table i4.1. Percentage iof iRespondent- iGender. 36. Table i4.2. Percentage iof iRespondent i- iAge. 37. Table i4.3. Percentage iof iRespondent i- iMarital iStatus i. 38. Table i4.4. Percentage iof iRespondent i- iIncome. 39. Table i4.5. Percentage iof iRespondent i- iEducation. 40. vii. FYP FHPK. Intention iTowards iUntact iTourism.

(9) Abbreviations COVID-19. Corona iVirus-19. SARS. Severe iAcute iRespiratory iSyndrome. MER-CoV. Middle iEast iCorona iVirus-Related iRespiratory iSyndrome. USA. The iUnited iState iof iAmerica. TOPB. Theory iof iPlanned iBehavior. CPRS. Corona iVirus iPerceived iRisk iScale. IV. Independent iVariable. DV. Dependent iVariable. RQ. Research iQuestions. SPSS. Statistical iPackage ifor iSocial iScience. www i. Web iWide iWeb. viii. FYP FHPK. LIST iOF iSYMBOLS iAND iABBREVIATIONS.

(10) In iMalaysia, ithe ieffect iof iCOVID-19 ihas iput ithe itourism iindustry iunder ipressure. iThe iprolonged idissemination iof ithe inovel icoronavirus ihad icaused iMalaysia ito imove ito iuntact itourism. iUntact itourism iis ia inew iparadigm ithat iaccommodates iindividuals’ ineed ito iminimise itheir iperceived irisks. iHowever, iuntact itourism icaused itravellers’ irefusal ias ithey iperceived iit inegatively. iIn iaddition, inot imany iresearchers ihave ibeen idone iin iinvestigating itraveller irisk iperception ifollowing ihealth icrises. iThus, ithis iresearch iis idesigned ito istudy ithe iimpact iof ithe iperceived irisk iof iCOVID-19 ion ibehavioural iintentions itowards iuntact itourism iamong iMalaysian itourists. iIt iexplored icognitive, iaffective, iand iemotional iperceived irisk ion ibehavioural iintention itowards iuntact itourism. iThis iresearch iwill iuse ia iquestionnaire ias ia imethod ito icollect ithe idata. iData icollected ifrom ithis iquestionnaire iwill ibe ianalysed iusing iSPSS. iThis istudy iis ibelieved ito iprovide ia igood iinsight itowards iacademicians iand ipractitioners iin ipreparing ithem ito ithe ipost i-corona ifield ifor ia inew inormal iafter ithe iexperience iof irestricted iliving iduring ian iunprecedented ipandemic. Keywords: iCOVID-19, iuntact itourism, iperceived irisk.. ix. FYP FHPK. ABSTRACT.

(11) Di iMalaysia, ikesan iCOVID-19 itelah imeletakkan iindustri ipelancongan idi ibawah itekanan. iPenyebaran inovel ikoronavirus iyang iberpanjangan itelah imenyebabkan iMalaysia iberpindah ike ipelancongan iyang itidak ibersentuhan. iPelancongan iyang itidak ibersentuhan iadalah iparadigma ibaru iyang imenampung ikeperluan iindividu iuntuk imeminimumkan irisiko iyang idilihat imereka. iWalau ibagaimanapun, ipelancongan iyang itidak ibersentuhan imenyebabkan ikeengganan ipelancong ikerana imereka imelihatnya inegatif. iDi isamping iitu, iTidak ibanyak ikajian itelah idilakukan idalam imenyiasat ipersepsi irisiko ipengembara iberikutan ikrisis ikesihatan. iOleh iitu, ikajian iini idireka iuntuk imengkaji ikesan irisiko iCOVID-19 iyang idilihat iterhadap iniat itingkah ilaku iterhadap ipelancongan iyang itidak iaksama idi ikalangan ipelancong iMalaysia. iIa imeneroka ikesan ikognitif, ikolektif, idan iemosi iyang idilihat irisiko ike iatas iniat itingkah ilaku ike iarah ipelancongan iyang itidak imenarik. iPenyelidikan iini iakan imenggunakan iborang isoal iselidik isebagai ikaedah iuntuk imengumpul idata. iData iyang idikumpul idaripada iborang isoal iselidik iini iakan idianalisis imenggunakan iSPSS. iKajian iini idipercayai imemberi igambaran iyang ibaik ikepada iahli iakademik dan pengamal idalam imenyediakan imereka ike ibidang ipasca ikorona iuntuk inormal ibaharu iselepas ipengalaman ihidup iterhad isemasa ipandemik iyang itidak ipernah iberlaku isebelum iini. Kata iKunci: iCOVID-19, ipelancongan itanpa isentuhan, irisiko iyang iada. x. FYP FHPK. ABSTRAK.

(12) INTRODUCTION. 1.1. INTRODUCTION. This ichapter isets iout ithe ibasis ifor ithe istudy. iIt ibegins iwith ia idiscussion iof ithe i. background ito ithe istudy, ifollowed iby ia iproblem istatement, ithe iresearch iobjective iand ithe. i. research iquestion. iNext iin iline iis ithe ipresentation iof ithe isignificance iof ithe istudy iand ithe. i. definition iof ithe iterm iof ithe istudy ibased ion ithe ieffect iof icoronavirus i(COVID-19) irisk. i. perception ion ibehavioural iintention itowards iuntact itourism. iThis ichapter iends iwith ia. i. summary iof ithe iorganization iof ithis istudy.. 1.2. BACKGROUND iOF iSTUDY. A icoronavirus inewly iidentified, iSARS-CoV-2, ihas icaused ia iglobal irespiratory i. pandemic icalled iCOVID-19 i(Jun iZheng, i2020). iCOVID-19 iis ia idisease ithat istarted iin. i. China iin iDecember i2019 idue ito ithe inew icoronavirus. iThe isymptoms iof iCOVID-19. i. include icough, ifever ior ichills, ishortness iof irespiration ior idifficulty iin ibreathing, imuscles. i. or ibody iweariness, isore ithroat, itaste ior ismell iloss, idiarrhoea, iheadache, inew itiredness,. i. nausea ior ivomiting, iand iconjuring ior irunning inose. iRespiratory icoronavirus isyndrome. i. (SARS) iand ithe iMiddle iEast irespiratory isyndrome i(MER-CoV) imay ibe idivided iinto itwo. 1. FYP FHPK. CHAPTER i1.

(13) distinct icategories iof icoronavirus i(World iHealth iOrganization, i2020). iCoronavirus iis ian. i. infecting ivirus ifamily ithat imeans ithat ipeople ihave inot idiscovered ia inew itype iof ivirus.. i. Both ianimals iand ihuman ibeings ican ireceive icoronavirus. iCoronavirus iis ia ifamily iof. i. viruses ithat icommonly iinfect ithe iairways, iand icoronavirus ialso irefers ito idiscovering ia. i. new ivirus itype ithat ihumans ihave inever idiscovered. iThis ivirus ican ispread ito iboth ianimals. i. and ihumans. iThis ivirus iinfection iis iclose ito iother iinfluenza iinfections iand ihas imore. i. severe icompilations iwith ithe icompromised iimmune isystem i(Ruchi iet ial., i2020).. i. COVID-19 imay ibe isevere, iand isome icases ihave icaused ideath i(Tanu iSinghal, i2020). I. COVID-19 ihas ibadly iaffected iall iindustries, iincluding ithe itourism iindustry i. (Seyyed iZabihi, i2020). iNow ihotels, iairlines, iand icruise ioperators iare isome iof ithe. i. worst-hit itourism iindustries, iand ithis ieffect iis idue ito ithe ineed ito iavoid ithe itourism ipart iof. i. the iworld. iThe iimpact iof iCOVID-19 ihas icaused imany iglobal itravel iwithdrawals,. i. business icancellations, ipublic ievents, itemporary iwork ichanges, iand idecreased iwages. i. (Eurofound, i2020). iAir iAsia isuffering ifrom ipainful ilosses idue ito ithe iCOVID-19 icrisis iis. i. one iexample i(Prem iKumar, i2020). iAir iAsia iGroup ihas ireported ia iloss iof i804 imillion. i. ringgit i($188 imillion), ithe ilow-cost iSoutheast iAsian icarrier. iThe iCOVID-19 icrisis ihas. i. led ito ia i22 iper icent ireduction iof itotal ipassengers itransported ito i9,85 imillion ion imost. i. important iAirAsia imarkets isuch ias iMalaysia, iThailand, iIndonesia, ithe iPhilippines, iChina. i. and iIndia. iThe ilargest ilow-cost iairline iin iSoutheast iAsia ireported ithat ithis iwas istarting. i. well ibefore iin iFebruary, ithe imarket iconditions iabruptly ideteriorated, iwith ithe ispread iof. i. coronavirus.. In iMalaysia, ithe ieffect iof iCOVID-19 ihas iput ithe itourism iindustry iunder ipressure i. on ithe icountry’s itourism ieconomic isector ithrough ithree imain ichannels i(Linda iBethke,. 2. FYP FHPK. i.

(14) 2020). iFirst iof iall, iadditional ientry irestrictions iand imovements ifor idomestic itourism. i. activity ihave iaffected ithe itourist iindustry iand ithe iindustries. iSecond, ithe iglobal isupply. i. chain iwas iaffecting ithe ieconomic isectors iof ithe icountry. iFor iinstance, iproduction iin ithe. i. automobile iand ifacial imask iindustry iin icountries iaffected iby ithe iCOVID-19 ilike iChina. i. was iaffected iby ia ishortage iof iraw imaterial iproduction. iThirdly, ievery itime iit ireduced ior. i. temporarily isuspended ioperations iin ithe iU.S. iSegment, iair ioperations iwere ialso iaffected. i. by ithe icompany’s iemergence i(Linda iBethke, i2020).. ‘Untact iculture’ ihas iexpanded isince ithe iCOVID-19 ioutbreak. iAn iexpert isays ithat i. the i“untact imovement,” iwith ithe iCOVID-19 ioutbreak ias ian iimpetus, iwill icontinue ito. i. develop. i‘Untact imovement’ ihas ireduced icontact ibetween iindividuals ito ia iminimum, ias. i. stated i(Sam iKim, i2020). i‘Untact itourism’ ican ibe idefined ias ia iway iof itravelling iwithout. i. direct icontact iwith iother ipeople iand ikeeping ithem idistant i(Sam iKim, i2020). iIn iKorea. i. and iother icountries, ithis iterm ihas ibecome ipopular ito idescribe ia inew itype iof itravelling. i. that iprioritises isocial idistance iby ipreventing icrowded ispaces iand iindoor iactivities.. i. Tourism iMalaysia iand iGovernment ihave ialso iencouraged idomestic itourism iand inatural. i. attractions isuch ias ihiking itrails, iforests iand iparks. iFurthermore, ithe iterm i“uncontact” ihas. i. been iknown iin iitself ias ithe i“uncontacted” iterm. i“Uncontacting” iTourism iMalaysia iand. i. the igovernment ihave ialso ipromoted inational itourism iand inature iattractions, isuch ias. i. hiking itrails i(Corinne iWan, i2020).. Due ito ithe iemerging i‘untact iculture’ iin itravelling iand ithe iincreasing iconcern ion i. risk iinvolve iin iuntact itourism. iThus, ithis iresearch iis iconducted ito istudy ithe irisk. i. perception iof iuntact itourism. iThis istudy iis ibelieved ito iprovide igreat iinsight ito. 3. FYP FHPK. i.

(15) academicians iand itourism iplayers iin iproviding ia inuanced iview iof itourist ibehaviour. i. during ifuture iinfectious idisease ioutbreaks.. 1.3 I. PROBLEM iSTATEMENT. The icurrent ipandemic isituation iof iCOVID-19 ihas iled ipeople ito ipursue ia inew i. lifestyle icalled i“untact itourism”. iThis iis ithe ionly iway ito iavoid icrowded iplaces ior iindoor. i. activities irather ithan ito iturn ito ioutside iplaces iwith iplenty iof ispace i(So iYoung iBae i&. i. Po-Ju iChang, i2020). iUntact iis ia ibrand-new iterm iintroduced ifirst iin iTrend iKorea i2018. i. that ireduces iface-to-face iinteraction icustomer iconduct i(So iYoung iBae i& iPo-Ju iChang,. i. 2020). iNew iprocesses iimplemented irecently iin idaily ioperations iinclude iself-service. i. counters, ionline ipayment iand itechnology idevelopment i(Lee i& iLee, i2020). iThis inew iway. i. of iworking iadapted ito ithe ivarious iinteraction iprocesses ito icontinue iour iway iof ilife iafter. i. COVID-19, iespecially iin ithe itourism isector.. However, ithis inew iculture ihas icaused irefusal ifrom itraveller ias ithey iperceived iit i. negatively i(Stewart i& iLeggat, i2006). iIn igeneral, ithis iperceived irisk iamong itourists ihurts. i. images, ias itourists itend ito iavoid irisky idestinations i(Wise iet ial., i2020). iDuring ithe ifirst. i. week iof ithe iCOVID-19 ipandemic, ithe iauthors idisclosed ichanges iin iperception iof ithe. i. U.S.’s irisk iand inoted ia igrowing irisk iawareness iand ithe ifrequency iwith iwhich iprotection. i. was iinvolved. iThis itype iof itourist ibehaviour iis isimilar ito iCahyanto iet ial.’s iprevious. i. study i(2016). iThe iauthors iconcluded ithat ithe iEbola ioutbreak iin ithe iU.S. iincreased ithe. i. perceived ihealth irisk iand iseverity iof idomestic itourists. iSimilarly, iHuanga iet ial. i(2020). 4. FYP FHPK. i.

(16) have ifound iempirical ievidence ithat itourists iinvolved iin ipreventative ibehaviour imitigate. i. Tibetan ihealth irisks.. Besides, ia itourist’s irisk iperception iis iinfluenced iby iindividual icharacteristics iand i. demographic ifactors i(Carr, i2001). iOther ifactors iinclude iinternal ifactors isuch ias icultural. i. background iand ipast iexperiences iand iexternal ifactors isuch ias ithe imedia, iother isources iof. i. information iand isurrounding igroups i(Lepp i& iGibson, i2003). iThis iperceived itravel irisk. i. is ipositively irelated ito ithe iintention ithat ione’s itravel iplans ishould ibe ichanged i(Schroeder. i. et ial., i2013). iThus, ithe ilink ibetween ithe iperception iof irisk iand itravel ibehaviour iis. i. essential ito iunderstand.. Moreover, isome iarea iuse itechnology ito imitigate iCOVID-19 irisk. iHowever, inot i. all itourists iare ifamiliar iwith ithe itechnologies iintroduced. iNot iall itourists iare iskilled iwith. i. advanced itechnology i(Belen iVidal, i2019). iTourist iwill ifeel itroublesome iand. i. uncomfortable iin iusing ithe itechnologies, iespecially iamong isenior icitizens itourist. iFor. i. example, imany isenior itourists ifeel iawkward iusing ithe iMySejahtera iapplication, iand ithey. i. would iprefer ito irecord ithe iname, iphone inumber iand itemperature iin ithe ipermit ibook.. A iwide irange iof istudies ihas iinvestigated ithe itraveller’s irisk iperception ifollowing i. medical icrises i(Floyd iet ial., i2004). iIt iis iunknown iwhat iimpact iCOVID-19 iis ion. i. traveller’s irisk iperception iand ihow ia ipandemic iexceeding iall iformer itourism icrises. i. affects itravel ibehaviour iover itime. iThis iproblem iand igap iquestioned ithe ifuture iof ithe. i. tourism iindustry iand, imore iimportantly, ihow irisk iperceptions icould ipotentially iinfluence. i. tourists’ itravel ipost-crisis irebound ibehaviour, iespecially ithe iimpact iof ithe icurrent ipublic. 5. FYP FHPK. i.

(17) health icrisis iin iCOVID-19. iTherefore, ithis iresearch iis ibeing icarried iout ito istudy ithe. i. impact ion iMalaysian itourists’ ibehavioural iintentions iof ithe iperceived irisk iof iCOVID-19.. 1.4. I. RESEARCH iOBJECTIVES. 1. To iexamine ithe iimpact iof icognitive irisk iperception ion ibehavioural iintention i. towards iuntact itourism.. 2. To iexamine ithe iimpact iof iaffective irisk iperception ion ibehavioural iintention i. towards iuntact itourism.. 3. To iexamine ithe iimpact iof iemotional irisk iperception ion ibehavioural iintention i. 1.5. i. towards iuntact itourism.. RESEARCH iQUESTION. 1. How ito iexamine ithe iimpact iof icognitive irisk iperception ion ibehavioural iintention i. towards iuntact itourism?. 2. How ito iexamine ithe iimpact iof iaffective irisk iperception ion ibehavioural iintention i. towards iuntact itourism?. 3. How ito iexamine ithe iimpact iof iemotional irisk iperception ion ibehavioural iintention i. towards iuntact itourism?. 6. FYP FHPK. i.

(18) SIGNIFICANCE iOF iTHE iSTUDY. This istudy ihas itimely iand iinsightful iimplications ifor itourism iexperts iand i. academics iwho iexpect ito iprepare ithe ifield iafter ia ilimited ilife iexperience iduring ian. i. unprecedented ipandemic ifor ia inew inormal. iIt ihas iseveral itheoretical iconsequences.. First iof iall, ithis istudy irepresents ian iacademic itrial iby iinterpreting ithe iongoing i. global iissue ithat ihas icaused isignificant iupheavals iworldwide iand ipeople’s ilives ito. i. contribute ito itourism iliterature. iConsidering ithe ipotential iCOVID-19 isecond iwave iin ithe. i. fall ifollowing itemporary iinternational irelief i(Maxouris, i2020), ithe istudy iresults iwill. i. provide ian iessential ibenchmark ifor ilongitudinal istudies ito imonitor ithe ichange iin. i. tourists’ ishort- iand ilong-term iconduct ias irecommended iby iGössling iet ial. i(2020).. i. Furthermore, ithis istudy’s iresults iprovide inuanced iinsights iinto itourist iconduct iduring. i. future ioutbreaks iof iinfectious idiseases.. Next, ithe igovernment ibenefits ifrom ithis istudy iby iformulating ia inew iuntact i. tourism ipolicy. iThis ipolicy iwill ihelp iensure ithat ithe iepidemic iof iCOVID-19 iis inot. i. spreading iand ireduced iby idistancing isocially ibetween iindividuals iin ipublic iareas ithe. i. number iof ipersons iaffected iby ithis iepidemic. iIndirectly, iit ibenefits ithe igovernment iwhen. i. the icommunity icomplies iwith ithe ipolicy ithat ihas imade, iand ithere iis ia idecline iin ithe. i. number iof iindividuals iaffected iby ithis idisease, iand ino inew icases iare irecorded.. This istudy ialso ihas ipractical iimplications ifor ithe iKorean itourism iindustry iand i. the iglobal itourism imarket. iTourist ipractitioners imay ihave ito iconsider inew itourism ias ia. 7. FYP FHPK. 1.6 I.

(19) new iparadigm ithat iaddresses iindividuals’ ineed ito ireduce itheir iperceived irisks iand imeet. i. their itravel ineeds. iTourist ipractitioners icould icommunicate itheir iefforts ito ipractice. i. without iany icontact ito isafeguard itourists’ isafe itravel iexperience.. 1.7 I. DEFINITION iOF iTERMS. 1.7.1 I PERCEIVED iRISK. The iperceived idanger iis ithe ishopper's iinstability iwhen ibuying iitems, mainly i. those iextremely iexpensive, ifor iexample, ivehicles, ihomes, iand icomputers. iEach itime ia. i. shopper iconsiders ithe ipurchase iof ian iitem, ihe ior ishe ihas ispecific iquestions iabout ithe. i. item, iespecially iif ithe iobject iin ithe iaddress iis iintensely iestimated.. 1.7.2 I UNTACT iTOURISM. In iKorea, ia iconcept iwith ithe inegative iprefix’ iun' iin ithe iword i‘touch’ imay ibe ia i. recently icoined iconcept ireferring ito ibehaviour iused ito idescribe icoordination icontact. i. between ipeople i(Bae i& iChang, i2020). iUntouched iuse iincludes ia iself-service icounter,. i. online iprocurement iand iinstallation iand iunexpected ibooths ifocusing ion icreative. i. development iand ithe iindependence iof ipresent iindividuals i(Lee i& iLee, i2020).. 8. FYP FHPK. i.

(20) Behavioural iintention irefers ito i“a iperson iwho ihas ia isubjective iprobability iof i. executing ia ifew ibehaviours” i(Fishbein i& iAjzen, i1975). iBehavioural ipurposeful. i. expansion iis ithree iautonomous ipredecessors’ iwork: idemeanour iconsumers, isubjective. i. norm, iand iperceived ibehavioural ipower. i. 1.8. i. SUMMARY i i. In iconclusion, iuntact itourism ihas ibecome ipopular iin iKorea ito idescribe ia inew i. travelling istyle, iprioritizing isocial idistancing iby iavoiding icrowded iplaces iand iindoor. i. activities. iIn iMalaysia, ithe ieffect iof iCOVID-19 ihas iput ithe itourism iindustry iunder. i. pressure ion ithe icountry’s itourism ieconomic isector. iHotels, iairlines, iand icruise ioperators. i. are isome iof ithe iworst-hit itourism iindustries. iThe iprolonged idissemination iof ithe inovel. i. coronavirus ihad icaused iMalaysia ito imove ito iuntact itourism. iThere iis ilimited iresearch ion. i. the ieffects iof iperceived irisk ion ibehavioural iintentions, iparticularly iin ia iCOVID-19. i. pandemic. iThis iresearch ihas iexamined ithe irisk iperception iof iuntact itourism iand ithe. i. impact ion ithe iperception iof irisk iand ibehavioural ipurposes iof iMalaysian itourists. iThis. i. study iprovides ipractical iimplications iboth ifor ithe iMalaysian itourism iindustry iand ifor ithe. i. global itourism imarket. iTourists imay ineed ia inew iparadigm ithat iaddresses ipeople’s. i. necessity ito iminimize itheir iperceived irisk. iTourism iis ia inew iparadigm. iIn ieither icase,. i. behavioural iintention iis ithe imost isignificant ipredictor iof ibehaviour.. 9. FYP FHPK. 1.7.3 iBEHAVIOURAL iINTENTION i.

(21) LITERATURE iREVIEW. 2.1. i. INTRODUCTION i. This ichapter iprovides ia istudy iof ithe iliterature irelated ito iresearch. iThe ireport i. specifies ia ibetter iunderstanding iof ithe iimplications ifor ithe irisk iof ibehavioural iintention. i. towards iuntact itourism iof ithe icoronavirus idisease i(COVID-19). iIt ialso iaddresses ithe ilink. i. between ibehavioural iintention irisk iperception, icognitive iperceived irisk, iaffective. i. perceived irisk iand iemotional iperceived irisk itowards ibehavioural iintention ion iuntact. i. tourism. iFinally, ithis ichapter iacknowledges ithe igaps iin ithe iliterature.. 2.2. LITERATURE REVIEW. 2.2.1. UNTACT iTOURISM. Risk iperception irefers ito isubjective iconvictions ior iassessing idubious i. circumstances iarising ifrom ithe ispecific ihazard i(Bauer, i1960). iUnder ispecific. i. circumstances, iindividuals iregularly iuse iaccessible iheuristics ito ievaluate ifuture. i. occasions i(Butler i& iMathews, i1987). iMany iinvestigators ithen iinspected ithe iconcept iof. i. the ihazard iseen iinstead iof ithe ireal iopportunity isince ihuman ibehaviour iis ithe imost. 10. FYP FHPK. CHAPTER i2.

(22) decisive ifactor i(Dillard iet ial., i2012). iResearchers iinspected ihazard ifrom itwo icognitive. i. and iemotional imeasurements i(Brug iet ial., i2004). iCognitive iacknowledgement iof ichance. i. incorporates ithe iperceived ipowerlessness iand iearnestness iof ichance. iBy icontrast, ia. i. complete isense iof ichance idiscernment ialludes ito iunrest ior iconcerns iabout ichance. i. presentation i(Sjöberg, i1998). iPast iinvestigation ion ithe idistinguishing icognitive iangle. i. (Shim i& iYou, i2015). iHowever, iin i2001, iLoewenstein iand ihis icolleagues ipresented ithe. i. risk-as-feeling iassumption ithat ithe ifull irecognition iof ithe irisk iinfluenced icertain iconduct. i. (Loewenstein iet ial., i2001). iIn iparticular, ithey ihave istated ithat irecognizing ithe icomplete. i. sense iof ichance ibecomes ia imore ieffective icalculation iin ihuman ibehaviour iwhen ian. i. individual ifaces ia ideeply idreadful ihazard i(Peter i& iSlovic, i1996).. i i i. The ihazard iwas iconsidered ia ikey iconcern iin ithe itourism ifield ifor itraveller. i. worldwide i(Kozak iet ial., i2007). iSince ian iindividual’s iinborn isecurity irequirement iis imet,. i. security iand isecurity iissues ican iheavily iimpact itravel ichoices i(Beirman, i2002).. i. Moreover, itourism iinvolvement iand iintangibility ioften ilead ito imore iprominent ivisitor. i. hazards i(Fuchs iet ial., i2013). iTourism ihazard irecognition iis icharacterized ias ipeople’s. i. discernment iof i“the ilikelihood ifor ia ichance ifrom ian iactivity ithat ican iinfluence itravel. i. choices ion ithe ioff ichance ithat ithe iseen ithreat isurpasses ia isatisfactory ilevel” i(Chew i&. i. Jahari, i2013). iHazard ifrom iwounds, imishaps, imilitant ipsychological iexercises,. i. characteristic icalamities, ipolitical iflimsiness, iand iplagues imay ibe iincluded. iSince ithe. i. 1990s, itourism ianalysts ihave ibeen iexploring ihazard iand itheir ieffect ion ivisitor ichoice iand. i. conduct i(Huang iet ial., i2020). iAs ireal iillnesses ilike iSARS, iAvian iflu iand iMERS ihave ihad. i. a isevere iinfluence ion ithe itourism iindustry, ia iconsiderable idiscussion ihas itaken iplace ion. i. the ifinancial iimpact iand iimpact iof ipandemics iin ithe itourism iindustry i(Floyd iet ial., i2004;. i. Lee iet ial., i2012). iSome ianalysts ihave iexamined ihealth-proof isightseer ipractices isuch ias. 11. FYP FHPK. i.

(23) anticipation iof ivisitors i(Hartjes iet ial., i2009), ihealth isearch ipractices irelated ito itravel. i. (El-Ghitany iet ial., i2018) iand imediation ifree iof idisease i(Lee iet ial., i2012). Risk iperception iwas iconsidered ia ikey icomponent iin ipredicting ihealth ibehaviours. i. (Rosenstock, i1974). iThose iat irisk iare iexpected ito itake imore ipreventive ihealth iactions ito. i. avoid ior iminimize ihealth irisks i(Chen iet ial., i2017). iHBM iis ia iframework ifor iclarifying. i. the ihealth-protection iactions iof iindividuals iduring ithe iCOVID-19 ipandemic.. 2.2.2 I BEHAVIORAL iINTENTION. A iterm ifor ibehaviour iused iin idifferent imeanings ias iTORA, iFishbein iand iAjzen i. (1975) idescribes ibehavioural iintentions ias ithe isubjective iprobability iof ia ibehavioural. i. agent. iThis iconcept idiffers ifrom ieveryday ilanguage iintentions, iWarshaw iand iDavis. i. (1985) iargue. iThey idefine ibehavioural iintentions ias i‘as ifar ias ia iperson ihas iconsciously. i. formulated iplans ior ifails ito iconduct ispecific iconduct iin ithe ifuture i(Warshaw i& iDavis,. i. 1985). iThey idescribe ithe ioriginal iconcept iof iFishbein iand iAjzen ias ibehavioural ihope. iIn. i. the ifirst iTOPB iversion iof iAjzen i(1985), ithe iidea iof ibehaviour iand iexpectation. i. distinguished ifrom iWarshaw iand iDavis iis iapplied. iAjzen iassumes ithat ibehavioural. i. expectations iare icommensurate iwith iobjective ibehavioural iand isubjective icontrol. iThis. i. study iwill ilearn ithe iimpact ion ibehavioural iintent itoward inew itourism iof icoronavirus ior. i. COVID-19 irisk iperception. iBehaviour ihas imany ifactors, ibut ithe iresearcher ionly ifocuses. i. on ithree icognitive, iemotional iand iaffective ielements.. 12. FYP FHPK. i.

(24) AFFECTIVE iPERCEIVED iRISK. An iaffecting ireaction ioffers iinsight iinto ia isituation iand ithe isentiments ithat ihave i. influenced irisk iassessments ibased ion isimilar ipast iexperiences iand iassociations i(Gilovich. i. et ial., i2007; iPeters iet ial., i2006).. An iaffective isense iof irisk irefers ito ianxiety iand iconcerns iabout irisk iexposure i. (Sjöberg, i1998). iIn i2001, ihowever, iLoewenstein iand ihis icolleagues iintroduced ithe. i. risk-as-feeling itheory, iwhich istresses ithe ieffects ion iindividual iconduct iaffecting irisk. i. perception i(Loewenstein iet ial., i2001). iSpecifically, ithey isaid iaffective irisk iperception. i. becomes imore icritical iwhen ian iindividual iis iexposed ito ia ihighly ifearful irisk ito iexplain. i. human iactions i(Peters i& iSlovic, i1996).. The iperception iof irisk iis iaffected iby itwo itypes. iFirst, ithe iadverse ieffects i. measured ias ian iexample iof ipredictive iemotions ithat iare ipart iof ithe irisk iperception. i. process imay ibe iinterpreted. iIn iother iwords, iwhen ipeople itake ia irisky itask iinto iaccount,. i. they ianticipate ithat ithey ihave inegative iemotions i(e.g., ifear iwhen iimagining ia icar icrash ias. i. a iconsequence iof idangerous idriving). iSecondly, iwe ialso ishowed ithat irisk iperception. i. could ibe iinfluenced iby ithe iadverse ieffects iand ithe istress-free iparticipants iperceived ias. i. above-assigned iparticipants iof ia irisk-assigned iactivity. iThese ifindings isomewhat. i. conform ito ithe iemotional imodel i(Lerner iet ial., i2015) ithat iassumes ithat ithe iemotions ifelt. i. when ithe ichoice iwas imade iare iconstituted iby iboth ithe isentiments ithat iform ipart iof ithe. i. choice iproblem iand iunrelated iemotions i(Traczyk i& iFulawka, i2016).. 13. FYP FHPK. 2.2.3.

(25) Generally, icognitive imeans ia imental iprocess ifor iinterpreting, ilearning iand i. understanding isomething. iCognitive irisk iperception iwill ihave ia ipositive iand inegative. i. influence ithat ican ibe isignificant ion ibehavioural iintentions. iAccording ito ithe iprevious. i. study, iIcek iAjzen i(1991) idetermines ihuman ibehaviour iby ibehavioural iintentions. i. influenced iby iattitudes, isubjective inorms iand iperceived ibehavioural icontrol. iThe. i. problem iof ithe iCOVID-19 ipandemic iis iclosely ilinked. iMore ipatients iinfected iwith ithe. i. epidemic ieach iday imust iconsider ithis idisaster’s ipsychological iand imental ihealth. i. consequences. iIt ishould ibe iclarified ithat ipandemics iaffect ithe ieconomy inot ionly. i. medically ibut ialso iindirectly.. Cognitive ievaluation iis iwhen ithe iindividual iassesses ithe irelevance ito ia igiven i. encounter’s iwell-being iin ithe ienvironment iand ihow. iThere iare itwo iphases. iPrimary. i. assessment irefers ito ian iestimate iof ia iperson’s iinvolvement iwith ianything iin ithe imeeting.. i. Meetings ican ibe iassessed ias iirrelevant, ibenign, ior istressful. iIs ithe imeeting ipotentially. i. harmful ito ithe iwell-being ior ihealth iof ia iperson, ifor iexample? iEvaluating ian iassessment. i. of ia iperson’s iimpact ion ithe iconference’s ioutcome iis ia icritical iindicator iof ithe iprimary. i. evaluation, isuch ias iassessing ithe idisturbance, ithreat ior ichallenge iof ithe imeeting.. The icognitive idimension iof ithe irisks iis iassociated iwith ithe iprobability iand i. severité iof ithe iprevious ireport’s iimpact i(Sang iHwa iet ial., i2015). iThis iassessment iis. i. based ion iavailable iinformation. iThe icurrent istudy iworks ion ithe irisk icharacteristics iof. i. knowledge, iknowledge iand icontrol ifor ithe icognitive idimension. iExpertise ican ibe. i. defined ias iunderstanding ihow iwell ipeople iknow ia irisk i(Rolf iSkjong, i2015). iPeople imay. 14. FYP FHPK. 2.2.4 iCOGNITIVE iPERCEIVED iRISK.

(26) regard ia iparticular irisk ias irisky iwhen ithey iare iunknown ior iunknown i(Rolf iSkjong,. i. 2015). iIn ihis istudy, iSustein i(2002) ialso isuggested ithat iunfamiliarity ipanics iordinary. i. people ieven iwhen irisk iis irelatively ilow. iAccording ito ithe iprevious istudy iby iSlovic. i. (1999), ifamiliarity irefers ito ihow ipeople iare iused ito ia ithreat. iAnother iimportant ifeature. i. that icould iinfluence irisk iperception iis icontrollability: ipeople iwill iconsider ithe ithreat iless. i. severe iin ithe icourse iof itheir istudy iif ithey iperceive iit ican icontrol ia idanger i(Williams,. i. 2007).. Given ithe ipotential iof ithe iCOVID-19’s ilong-term ipsycho-social iimpact ion i. people’s ilives iduring iand iafter ithe ipandemic, ipandemic iscales imust ibe ideveloped ito. i. serve iresearch iand ipractice ithoroughly. iSuch ian iamount iwould ibe ibeneficial ito iidentify. i. the iperception iof iindividuals iabout ithe ipandemic. iThis istudy ihas iadapted iand itested ithe. i. factor istructure iof ia iRisk iPerception iScale irelated ito icoronavirus, iCPRS, iand. i. COVID-19. iThe iCPRS iwas iexpected ito iyield ia itwo-factor isolution, icognitive iand. i. emotional. iWe ipredicted ithat ievery isize iof ithe iscale iwould ibe ireliable iinternally.. This istudy ideals iwith ipeople ijudging ithe irisks iof ia iparticular ihazard ibased ion ithe i. combined i(perceived) irange iof irisk ifeatures isuch ias ifear, iknowledge iand icontrollability,. i. according ito ithe ipsychometric iparadigm iof iSlovic i(1987).. 15. FYP FHPK. i.

(27) i. EMOTIONAL iPERCEIVED iRISK. An i“emotional” iresponse iis irequired iby icognitive iprocessing. iEmotional i. responses isimultaneously imodulate iand iguide iawareness ito iallow ienvironmental. i. adaptation. iIt idepends ion ihow iwe isee iour iworld, ihow iour imemory iis iorganized iand ihow. i. we idecide icritically. iIn ithis ireview, iwe iprovide ian ioverview iof icurrent iaffective iscience. i. theorisation iand iresearch. iWe idiscuss ithe iconceptualization iof ithe iinteractions ibetween. i. cognitive iand iemotive iprocesses iby ipsychological itheories iof iemotion. iWe ithen istudy. i. how iour iperception, iattention, imemory, iand idecision-making iimpacts iemotional ieffects.. i. We iillustrate ithe imechanisms iand ineural isubstrate iunderlying ithe icognition iand iemotion. i. interactions iby istudies iwith ihealthy iparticipants iand iclinical ipopulations.. Psychool i(2009), ifrom ihis iprevious istudy, iwrites ithat iman iis ithe imost iemotional i. animal, ireferring ito ithe ifact ithat, ithrough isophisticated inervous isystems, iemotionality iis. i. increasing iacross ispecies. iThis iobservation isuggests ithat iemotion ican iperform ian. i. adaptive ifunction irequiring ia icertain iamount iof icomplexity iin iprocessing. iWe ihave. i. previously itheorized ithat ithe iemotional irole iis ito iunite istimulus iand ibehavioural. i. response, iallowing iflexible iadaptation i(Psychool, i2009) ito ienvironmental icontingencies.. i. A ireflex ior ifixed ipattern iof iaction iconnects ia ispecific imotivation iinflexibly ito ia iresponse.. i. By icontrast, ian iemotional iresponse iproduces ia ilatency iperiod iin iwhich iphysiological. i. responses ican ibe iinitiated, iand iseveral itendencies ifor iaction ican ibe iprepared iduring ia. i. further ianalysis iof ithe isituation.. 16. FYP FHPK. 2.2.5.

(28) i. the iperceived irisk iin iconsumer iexperience? iThe iauthor iargues ithat inegative iemotions iare. i. optimistic iand ipositive irelated ito iperceived irisk. iNegative iemotions iand iperceived. i. differences iin ithe icircumstances iand ithe ienvironment iaround iperceived irisk iare ifound.. Therefore, ian iemotional iperson iis icharacterized iby ia ihigh iinterdependence iof ithe i. organismic isubsystems, iwith itheir ineural isub icircuits iprovide ian iemotional iresponse iand. i. essentially icognitive ifunctions. iWe ishall inow iillustrate iin imore idetail ihow icognitive. i. functions isuch ias iperception, iattention, imemory iand ichoice iduring ian iemotional. i. response iare imodulated.. The iemotional iimpact ion iawareness iand iattention ifrequently iface ilarge iquantities i. of isensory iinformation iin iour idaily ienvironment. iBecause iof iour ibrain’s ilimited. i. capacity, iwe icannot ithoroughly iprocess iall iinformation ithat ienters iour isenses ibut imust. i. select ia isubset ito iprioritize iits iprocessing ifor iother idetails.. 17. FYP FHPK. According ito iLiang iet ial.’s iprevious istudy i(2006), ihow iis ian iemotion irelated ito.

(29) i. 2.3.1. i. i. HYPOTHESIS iDEVELOPMENT. RELATIONSHIP iBETWEEN iCOGNITIVE iPERCEIVED iRISK iAND. BEHAVIOURAL iINTENTIONS. Cognitive imeans iare ilearning iand iunderstanding imental iprocesses, iincluding i. thought, iknowledge, irecollection, iassessment iand iproblem-solving i(Cherry, i2020).. i. Perceived isensitivity iand isevere irisk iinclude icognitive irisk iperception i(Sjöberg, i1998).. i. The iperceived iknowledge irefers ito ihow iwell ipeople iknow irisk iconcerning icognitive. i. dimensions i(Brug iet ial., i2004). iCognitive irisk ireferences ianalytical, isystematic,. i. deliberative, iand ilogical irisk ianalysis iand isubsequent idecisions, iaccording ito iSlovic iand. i. Peters i(2006). iThe ifollowing ihypothesis iis ideveloped ibased ion ithe iabove idiscussion: Hypothesis i1: iThere iis ia irelationship ibetween icognitive iperceived irisk iand. i. behavioural iintention itowards iuntact itourism.. 2.3.2 i. i. RELATIONSHIP iBETWEEN iAFFECTIVE iPERCEIVED iRISK iAND. BEHAVIORAL iINTENTIONS i. Affective irisk iperception irefers ito ianxiety ior irisk iexposure iconcerns i(Sjöberg, i. 1998). iLoewenstein iand ihis icolleagues ihighlighted ithe iimpact iof iaffective iperception ion. i. some icompartments i(Lowenstein iet ial., i2001). iIn iparticular, ithey iindicated ithat iaffective. 18. FYP FHPK. 2.3.

(30) risk iperception ibecomes ia imore isignificant ideterminant iof ihuman iactivity iif ia iperson. i. faces ia ivery ifrightening irisk i(Peters i& iSlovic, i1996). iThe ibehavioural ipurposes iof. i. individuals iare iinfluenced iby ia ihigh ilevel iof iperceptions iof irisk, iaccording ito iChoi iet ial.. i. (2013) iand iLee i(2009). iFishbein iand iAjzen i(1975) ishow ithat ia iperson iintends ito. i. participate i(personal iconviction iand ifeelings itowards ithat ibehaviour). iOver iand iabove. i. the iconcerns iassociated iwith irisk iperceptions, ipeople iexperienced iduring ithe iCOVID-19. i. pandemic ivarious iaffective iconditions isuch ias ianxiety, ianger, iloneliness, ifrustration,. i. confusion, ilack iof iadequacy iand iuncertainty. iExploring iquarantine ipsycho-social iresults.. i. The ifollowing ihypotheses iare iproposed ibased ion ithe iabove idiscussion: Hypothesis i2: iThere iis ia ipositive irelationship ibetween iaffective iperceived irisk. i. and ibehavioural iintention itowards iuntact itourism.. 2.3.3 i. i. RELATIONSHIP. i. BETWEEN. i. EMOTIONAL. i. PERCEIVED. i. RISK. BEHAVIORAL iINTENTIONS. Practitioners imust iknow iabout irumours iand ithe ipotential irisk iof i“emotional i. infection” iin iany ipandemic i(Goodwin iet ial., i2011). iThe isocial icontext ican ialso iaffect ithe. i. level iof iprofessional iconcern. iThe ilower-income iclass, ifor iexample, ideals imore iwith. i. problems ilike iequitable ihealth iservice idistribution. iIn ithis iway, ian ioutbreak iin iChina ihas. i. shown iincreased ianxiety, idepression, isensitivity ito isocial irisk, iand idecreased isatisfaction. i. in ilife, iand ia ipandemic icould ilead ito iemotional iresponses ito ihealth irisks, iincreased. i. awareness iof irisk, iincreased inegative ifeelings isuch ias ianger ior ifear iand iconsiderable. 19. FYP FHPK. i.

(31) challenges iin irisk ireductions i(Vaughan i& iTinker, i2019; iLi iet ial., i2020). iThe ifollowing. i. hypotheses iare irecommended ibased ion ithe idiscussion: Hypothesis i3: iThere iis ia irelationship ibetween iemotional iperceived irisk. i. behavioural iintentions iis ia imore ilikely ipositive iattitude itowards iuntact itourism.. 2.4 I. CONCEPTUAL iFRAMEWORK. This istudy iwill ishow ithe iimpact ion ithe ibehavioural iintention ifor iuntact itourism iof i. the icoronavirus idisease ior iCOVID-19.. Figure i2.1 ishows iConceptual iframework iadapted ifrom iTheory iof iPlanned iBehavior i(Ajzen, i1985). 20. FYP FHPK. i.

(32) i. cognitive ithesis iemphasises ithe isubjective ivalue iof iconsequences iand ithe isubjective. i. expectation iof iresults ifrom ia ibehaviour, iwhich iclaims ithat irepetitive ibehaviour iresults. i. from ian iindividual's iimmediate ireward iafter ia ispecific iactivity i(Champion i& iSkinner,. i. 2008). iIf iused iin ihealth ibehaviour, ia iperson iwho ivalues iavoiding ihealth irisks ican ialso ibe. i. assumed ito iexpect ia ispecific iaction ithat ipromotes ihealth ito iminimize ithis irisk.. A isignificant ihistory iof isubjective istandards iand iperceived ibehavioural icontrols i. were ialso iperceived irisk i(Lee, i2009). iPeople iwho iperceive ia iparticular irisk iare iexpected. i. to iconduct ithemselves imore ipreventively ito iprevent ior ireduce ihealth ihazards.. 2.5. i. CONCLUSION. To iconclude, ithis ichapter iexamined ithe ieffect iof irisk iperception i(COVID-19) ion i. behavioural iintent itowards inew itourism iin ithe iexisting iliterature. iDevelopment iwas ialso. i. discussed iof ithe irelationship ibetween iaffective irisk iperceived, icognitive irisk iperceived,. i. emotional irisk iperception iand ibehavioural iintent. iTo iexamine ithe irelationship ibetween. i. independent iand idependent ivariables, ithe iresearcher iconstructed ia iconceptual. i. framework ifor ithis istudy. iThe ifollowing itable iprovides ian ioverview iof ithese iresearch. i. questions iand ihypotheses. iThe imethodology ito ibe iused iin ithis istudy iis idescribed iin ithis. i. chapter. i(See itable i2.1). 21. FYP FHPK. The icognitive itheory iis ibased ion ithe imodel i(Lewin, i1951). iIn icontrast, ithe.

(33) Research iQuestion. Description. Hypothesis. How ito iexamine ithe iimpact iof There iis ia irelationship ibetween RQ1 i. cognitive irisk iperception ion. i. cognitive iperceived irisk iand. i. behavioural iintention itowards. i. behavioural iintention itowards. i. untact itourism?. i. untact itourism.. How ito iexamine ithe iimpact iof There iis ia ipositive irelationship RQ2 i. affective. on. i. between iaffective iperceived irisk. i. behavioural iintention itowards. i. and. i. untact itourism?. i. towards iuntact itourism.. i. risk. i. perception. i. i. behavioural. intention. i. How ito iexamine ithe iimpact iof There iis ia irelationship ibetween i. emotional irisk iperception ion. i. emotional. i. behavioural iintention itowards. i. behavioural iintentions iis ia imore. i. untact itourism?. i. likely ipositive iattitude itowards. i. untact itourism.. i. perceived. i. risk. RQ3. 22. FYP FHPK. Table i2.1 ishows iThe iRelationship ibetween iResearch iQuestion iand iHypothesis.

(34) RESEARCH iMETHODOLOGY i. 3.1. i. INTRODUCTION. The imethod iused iin ithis iresearch iwas iexplained iin ithis ichapter. iThis ichapter iwill i. include iall ithe iresearch icomponents, ifrom iresearch idesign, ipopulation, isample isize,. i. sample imethod, idata icollection imethod, iresearch itool iand idata ianalysis. iFinally, ia. i. detailed isummary iof ithe iresearch iis iprovided iin ithis ichapter.. 3.2 I. RESEARCH iDESIGN. The iresearch idesign iis ithe istructure iof ithe iresearch imethods iand itechniques i. selected iby ia iresearcher i(Sileyew iK, i2019). iThe idesign iassists iscientists iin istudying iand. i. developing iresearch imethods isuitable ifor ithe isubject i(Sileyew iK, i2019). iThere iare. i. collection, imeasurement, iand ianalysis iof ithree iprincipal itypes iof iresearch i(Gunderson,. i. 2002). iThe icurrent istudy iused ithe iquantitative imethod ito iexamine icoronavirus. i. (COVID-19) irisk iperception ion ibehavioural iintention ion iuntact itourism. iThe iresearch. i. meant ithat ithe idata iwere icollected iusing ia iquestionnaire; ithis istudy iaimed iat idetermining. i. the ieffect iof iperception iof ithe irisk ifrom icoronavirus idisease i(COVID-19). iThe iscientist. i. also iuses ia idescriptive imethod iin ithis istudy. iDescriptive iresearch iis ia isuitable ichoice ifor. 23. FYP FHPK. CHAPTER i3.

(35) researchers ito iidentify ifeatures, ifrequencies, itrends ior icategories i(Shield iPatricia, i2013).. i. The iresearcher iused ia idescriptive imethod ibecause ithe iresearcher iwanted ito iinvestigate. i. the iimpact ion ibehavioural iintent itowards iunchallenged itourism iof ithe icognitive,. i. adequate iand iemotional iperceived irisk.. 3.3. i. POPULATION. The istudy’s itarget ipopulations iare ia itourist iwho ihas ithe iintention ito itravel iin i. Malaysia. iThe iresearcher ichooses itourist ito ibecome itheir itarget. iAccording ito iTourism. i. Malaysia istatistic ifrom i2017 iuntil i2019, ithe iaddition itourist iarrivals iin iMalaysia ihas ibeen. i. ups iand idown. iThe inumber iof itourists icoming ito iMalaysia iis i25.95 ibillion ipeople iin. i. 2017 iand idrop ito i25.83 ibillion itourists iin i2018. iIn i2019, ithe istatistic iof itourist iarrival. i. increase ito i26.10 ibillion ipeople. iThe iresearcher ichooses itourists ito ibecome itheir. i. respondents ibecause ithey iuse idifferent ifacilities, iand ithe iresearcher iwants ito iknow itheir. i. exposure ito iuntact itourism iduring ipandemic iCOVID-19.. 3.4 I. SAMPLE iSIZE. The isample iis ithe isystemic ipopulation idistribution i(Fenstermacher i& iRichardson, i. 2005), iwhich iincludes ia iprocess ifor ithe iselection iof ithe ihigher igroup imultiple isamples. i. (samples) ias ithe ibasis ifor ithe iassessment ior iimplication iof ireality, ithe icircumstances, iand. 24. FYP FHPK. i.

(36) the isignificance iof ithe ihigher igroup i(Kumar, i2006). iThis ianalysis iwas iused ito icalculate. i. the isize iof iunknown ipopulation isamples iusing iKrejcie iand iMorgon.. The iresearcher istated ifrom ithe iprevious istudy ithat ionly i96 irespondents iwere i. used. iIn iour istudy, iresearchers ichose ito iuse i200 irespondents ito iexamine icoronavirus. i. (COVID-19) irisk iperception idue ito ibehavioural iintent itowards iuntouched ivisitation iin. i. Malaysia ito iidentify ithe iresults iof ithis iresearch. iPrevious istudies ion icognitive, iaffective,. i. and iemotional iperceived irisk ialso iused ia isimilar isample isize. iFor iinstance, iSo iYoung. i. Bae i& iPo-Ju iChang i(2020) iused i200 iand i230 irespectively iin itheir istudy. i. Table i3.1 iKrejcie iand iMorgan iModel i. 25. FYP FHPK. i.

(37) i. SAMPLING iMETHOD i. According ito iLance iet ial.(2014), isampling icollects ia isubset ior istatistical isample i. of iindividuals ifrom ia istatistical ipopulation. iIn ithis iresearch, iwe ichoose ia isampling ifrom. i. a iprobability isample. iA iprobability isample iwas ia isample ilikelihood igreater ithan izero ifor. i. any iunit iin ithe ipopulation ito ibe iselected iin ithe isample. iThis iprobability ican ibe iaccurately. i. calculated. iBy iweighing ithe isampled iunits iaccording ito itheir ilikelihood iof iselection,. i. combining ithese icharacteristics imakes iit ipossible ito igenerate iunbiased ipopulation itotals. i. (Shamon, i1984). i. The iresearcher iselects isimple irandom isampling ias ithe imethod iof iobtaining ithe i. results iof iour iresearch. iA irandom isample iis ia igroup iof iindividuals ifrom ia ipopulation. i. selected. iEvery iperson iis ichosen iby ichance ito ihave ithe isame iprobability iof ibeing ialways. i. selected ifor ithe isurvey iduring ithe isampling iprocedure i(Moore iDaren.S, i2008). iThis. i. technique iwas iemployed ito iensure ithat ithe ivariables ifor ithe istudy iare irepresented. i. relatively iequal.. 3.6 I. DATA iCOLLECTION. Collecting idata icollects ivaluable iinformation ito iensure ia ilogical ianswer iis i. provided iby ithe ianalysis i(Sapsford i& iJupp, i2006). iPrimary iand isecondary idata. i. collection imethods iwere iemployed ifor ithis istudy. iThe icollection iof iprimary idata. 26. FYP FHPK. 3.5.

(38) involved ithe icollection iby ithe iresearcher ior itaught idata icollector idirectly ifrom isubjects.. i. Quantitative idata iare icollected ito iarrange iand iportray ipopulation icharacteristics iand. i. behaviour i(Parahoo, i2006). iRobson i(2007) iclaimed ithat ithe iless icomplicated iway ia. i. researcher ishould icollect iinformation ito ifind ianswers ito ithe iresearch iquestions ishould ibe. i. used iand ithat imore iinformation iwould ibe icollected ithan irequired. iThe isurvey imethod ifor. i. this istudy iwas iselected iamong ithe iprimary idata icollection imethods. iResearchers ialso. i. selected ia iquestionnaire ias ian iinstrument ifor idata icollection ito iachieve ithe igoals iof ithis. i. study. i. Due ito ithe ipandemic iCOVID-19, ithe iresearcher iplan ito idistribute ithe i. questionnaire ithrough igoogle iform ito ithe itourist iby ihanding iout iquestionnaires ito isocial. i. media isuch ias ithe iFacebook ipage iof i“Ministry iof iTourism, iArts, iand iCulture iMalaysia. i. by igovernment iorganization iand i“Kaki iTravel ipage” ito iget irespondents ibecause ithe. i. researcher iwants ito iknow itheir iexposure ion iuntact itourism iduring ipandemic iCOVID-19.. i. The iintroductory iletter iwill ibe iindicated ifirst ito ithe irespondent’s ienhancement iof ithe. i. explanation iand ithe iimportance iof ithis istudy. iOther ithan ithat, ithe iobjective iand isubject. i. of ithe iinclusion iwill iexplain ito ithe irespondent. iNext, ithe iquestionnaire iwill ibe igiven ito. i. the i200 irespondents ito igain ian iaccurate, ihelpful iresponse ifor ithe istudy. iThe. i. questionnaire iwill ibe ihanded iout ifor i48 ihours ifor ithe irespondent ito irespond iand iclose. i. after i48 ihours. iIt iis ito iavoid ian iunappreciated isurvey. iFinally, ithe igathered idata iwill ibe. i. analyzed iwith ithe iselected imethod. i. The isecondary idata ifrom idifferent isources iare icollected iin ithe imeantime. i. Secondary idata iwere iused ito isupport iresults iand ianalyses. iIn ithis istudy, ithe isecondary. i. data iused iwere iliterature, ijournals, iarticles, ibooks, iand iwebsites i(www).. 27. FYP FHPK. i.

(39) RESEARCH iINSTRUMENT i. In ithe isurvey iresearch icollection, ithe iquestionnaire iis ithe iprimary itool iused ito i. gather idata ifrom irespondent. iA iseries iof istandard iqueries iare ioften icalled iitems ito icollect. i. individual iinformation ion ione ior imore ispecific isubjects iunder ia ifixed ischeme.. i. Sometimes iquestionnaires ibecome iconfusing iinterviews. iA iformal icontract iin iwhich ithe. i. wording iand iorder iof iquestions iin ithe iinstrument igovern ithe iconversation iinvolves ia. i. particular itype iof iinterview. iA iquestionnaire iis ia iresearch itool iconsisting iof ia iset iof. i. queries ior iother itypes iof isuggestions ito iprovide ia irespondent iwith iinformation i(The. i. Ultimate iGuide ito iGreat iQuestionnaires, i2020). iThe iform iof ithe isurvey, ithe isequence iof. i. questions iand iresponses iare iall ifixed iand iwritten. iResearchers ionly ineed ipermission. i. from irespondents, iand idata ican ibe iobtained iquickly. iThe iresearchers ithen iperformed ia. i. rigorous idata ianalysis ito idetermine ithe ireal isignificance iand ivalue iof ithe idata. iIt iis ieasy. i. to iquantify ithis imethod.. The iquestionnaire iis iprepared iwith ithe iLikert iscale iin ia isimple iformat. iThe i. respondents ichoose ia i5-size ichoice. iIn ithe iLikert iscale, ithe irespondent ihad ia i5-scale. i. choice iof i1) istrongly idisagreed, i2) idisagreed, i3) imoderated, i4) iagreed, i5) ifirmly iagreed.. i. Answers ito ithe iquestion ishould ibe iclassified iaccordingly.. Question. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Strongly. Disagree. Moderate. Agree. Strongly. i. Disagree. i. Table i3.2 ishows iThe iLikert iScale. 28. Agree. FYP FHPK. 3.7 I.

(40) DATA iANALYSIS. The idata ianalysis iis ithe isystematical iapplication iand iillustration, icondensing iand i. recapturing istatistical iand ilogical itechniques iand iassessing idata. iAccording ito iShampoo. i. and iResnik i(2003), iseveral ianalytical imethods iallow iinductive iinferences ifrom idata ito ibe. i. drawn iand ithe isignal idistinguished ifrom ithe inoise. iThe iStatistical iPackage ifor iSocial. i. Science i(SPSS) iwill ibe iused ito isimplify iresearchers’ ianalytical idata. iFor ithe icurrent. i. study, ithree itests iinclude idescriptive istatistical ianalysis, isuch ias ireliability itesting,. i. descriptive ianalysis, iand iSpearman icorrelation.. 3.8.1 I DESCRIPTIVE iSTATISTIC i. Descriptive istatistics isummarize idata iorganised iby idescribing ithe irelationship i. between ivariables iin ia isample ior ipopulation. i(Vikas iet ial., i2018). iA idescriptive istatistic. i. is ia ibrief idescriptive icoefficient ithat isummarizes ia igiven idata iset, irepresenting ithe ientire. i. population isample. iDescriptive istatistics iare ibroken idown iinto imeasures iof icentral. i. tendency iand imeasures iof ivariability i(spread). iThe idescriptive istatistic ican isimplify ia. i. more imassive iamount iof idata isensibly. iThe idistribution, icentral itendency, iand idispersion. i. are ithree isignificant icharacteristics iof idescriptive istatistics.. 29. FYP FHPK. 3.8 I.

(41) The ireliability itest idetermines ithe imeasurement iof ithe iintended imeasurement ito i. which ithe itest iis iconsistent iand istable. iThe ireliability itest iaims ito iinvestigate idata. i. constancy iand iimmovability i(Malhorta iand iPeteraon, i2006).. Table i3.3: iRule iof iThumb iCronbach’s iAlpha Cronbach’s iAlpha 0.9 i≤ iα. iiiiiiiii. Internal iConsistency Excellent. iiiiiiiiiiiiiI. 0.8 i≤ iα i< i0.9. i. 0.7 i≤ iα i< i0.8. iiiiiiiiiii. 0.6 i≤ iα i< i0.7. iiiiiiiiiiiiI. 0.5 i≤ iα i< i0.6. iiiiiiiiiiiiiiI. α i< i0.5. ii. Good. Acceptable. Questionable Poor. Unacceptable. Source: iMatkar i(2012). 30. FYP FHPK. 3.8.2 I RELIABILITY iTEST.

(42) i. SPEARMAN iCORRELATION. The icorrelation iof iSpearman ican ibe iidentified ias ia inon-parameter itest ifor i. measuring ithe idifference ilevel ibetween ithe itwo ivariables i(Bonnett, i2008). iThe. i. correlation ican ibe ithe istrength iof ithe irelationship iand ithe idirections iof ithe irelationship. i. between itwo ivariables. iThe iforce iand idirection iof ithe iassociation ibetween itwo iclassified. i. variables iare imeasured. iHowever, iit iis iessential ifirst ito iunderstand iPearson’s icorrelation. i. before iwe idiscuss ithe iSpearman icorrelation icoefficient. iA iPearson icorrelation iis ia. i. measure iof ithe istrength iof ithe ilinear irelation iof ipair idata. iThe ivalue icorrelation. i. coefficient ivaries ibetween i+1 iand i-1. iThe istrength iof ithe irelationship iand ia ivalue iof i±1. i. indicates ithat ithe itwo ivariables iare icorrectly iconnected. iThe ivalue iis i0, iwhile ithe irelation. i. of ithe itwo ivariables iis iweak. iThe icorrelating ivalue iis i0. iA isign iof ithe icoefficient ishows. i. the irelation’s idirection; ia isign iof i+ iindicates ia ipositive iand inegative irelationship. iIn. i. statistics, iwe iusually imeasure ifour icorrelations: ithe iPearson, ithe iKendall, ithe iSpearman,. i. and ithe iPoint-Biserial, irespectively, icorrelations. iThe icorrelation iof iSpearman iis ichosen. i. in ithis iresearch ito idetermine ithe icritical ilink ibetween iIV iand iDV.. 31. FYP FHPK. 3.8.3.

(43) Coefficient iRange i(r). Strength iof iCorrelation. ± i0.90 iuntil i± i1.0. Very ihigh ipositive/negative icorrelation. ± i0.70 iuntil i± i0.90. High ipositive/negative icorrelation. ± i0.50 iuntil i± i0.70. Moderate ipositive/negative icorrelation. ± i0.30 iuntil i± i0.50. Low ipositive/negative icorrelation. ± i0.00 iuntil i± i0.30. Negligible icorrelation. Source: iBonnet i(2008). 3.9. i. CONCLUSION. In iconclusion, ievery ielement iinvolved iin iconducting isuch iresearch iwill ialso ibe i. mentioned iin ithis ichapter, iincluding ia isummary iof iresearch idesign, ipopulation, isample. i. size, isampling imethod, idata icollection iprocedure, iresearch iinstruments, iand idata. i. analysis. iThe iresearch imeant ithat ithe idata iwere icollected iusing ia iquestionnaire. iTo. i. examine ithe iassociation ibetween ithe iresearch iquestion icreated, idata icollected iin ithis. i. questionnaire iwere ianalyzed iusing ia istructured iquestionnaire ito iexplore ithe iimpact iof ithe. i. cognitive, iaffective, iand iemotional irisk iperception ion ibehavioural ipurpose itowards. i. untact itourism. iPrimary iand isecondary idata icollection imethods ishould ibe iemployed ifor. i. this istudy. iThe icollection iof iprimary idata iinvolved ithe icollection iby ithe iresearcher ior. i. taught idata icollector idirectly ifrom isubjects. iThe isurvey imethod ifor ithis istudy iis iselected. i. among ithe iprimary idata icollection imethods. iResearchers ialso iselected ia iquestionnaire ias 32. FYP FHPK. Table i3.4: iRule iof iThumb iof iCorrelation iCoefficient iSize.

(44) an iinstrument ifor idata icollection ito iachieve ithe igoals iof ithis istudy. iThere iare ithree itests. i. for ithe icurrent istudy: idescriptive istatistical ianalyses isuch ias ireliability itesting,. i. descriptive ianalysis, iand ithe icorrelation ibetween iSpearman. iThe iDescriptive. i. Statistically, ithe irelationship ibetween ivariables iin ia isample ior ipopulation iused ito isum iup. i. data iorganized. iDescriptive istatistics iare ibrief idescriptive icoefficients ithat isummarize ia. i. data iset irepresenting ieither ia ipopulation ior ia ipopulation isample. iA iPearson icorrelation iis. i. a imeasure iof ithe istrength iof ithe ilinear irelation iof ipair idata. iA isummary iof iresearch. i. questions iand idata ianalysis iused iin ithe istudy iis iprovided ibelow i(See itable i3.2). Research iQuestion. Data iAnalysis. How ito iexamine ithe iimpact iof icognitive irisk iperception ion Spearman icorrelation i. behavioural iintention itowards iuntact itourism?. How ito iexamine ithe iimpact iof iaffective irisk iperception ion Spearman icorrelation i. behavioural iintention itowards iuntact itourism?. How ito iexamine ithe iimpact iof iemotional irisk iperception Spearman icorrelation i. on ibehavioural iintention itowards iuntact itourism? Table i3.5 ishows iThe iSummary iof iResearch iQuestions iand iData iAnalysis. 33. FYP FHPK. i.

(45) RESULT iAND iDISCUSSION. 4.1. INTRODUCTION. This ichapter icovers idata ianalysis itechniques isuch ias idescriptive istatistics, i. reliability itests, iand iSpearmen’s iCorrelation. iEvery iinvestigation iwill idecipher iand. i. resolve ithe iresearch iquestions, iwhile idescriptive ianalysis iwill irationally isimplify ia imore. i. significant iamount iof idata. iAs ia iresult, ithe ireliability itest idetermines iwhether ithe itest iis. i. consistent iand istable iin iits imeasurement iof ithe iintended isize. iAdditional ianalyses iand. i. exploration iof ithe irelationship ibetween ithe ivariables iwill ibe iconducted iusing. i. Spearman’s icorrelation itest.. 4.2 i. RESPONSE iRATE. A iwhole iamount iof i1 iquestionnaire idistributed ionline. iFrom ithe i235 i. questionnaires icollected ifrom ithe itargeted irespondents, ionly i235 irefunded. i. questionnaires iwere iused. iThere iall iamount i235 iuse iable iquestionnaires icollected ionline.. A itest imoderately iestablished ithe istudy’s ioverview, ian ianalysis ican iprovide i. reasonable ireaction irates, iand isuperior iprecision iis iless iclear. iThe ireaction irate, iwhich iis. 34. FYP FHPK. CHAPTER i4.

(46) the inumber iof istudy irespondents iwho iresponded ipositively ito ithe iquality itested, iis. i. frequently iused ito imeasure ihow ifar ican ibe iapplied ithe istudy iresults.. Table i4.1: iTotal iNumber iof iQuestionnaire Number iof iquestionnaires idistributed. 235. Questionnaires returned and use able to be analysis. 235. Response irate. 100%. The questionnaire used for analysis. 235. Source: iFieldwork iStudy i(2021). 4.3. RESPONDENT’S iDEMOGRAPHIC. A itotal iof i235 iquestionnaire isets iwere iassigned ivia ithe ionline iportal. iThis isection i. included ithe irespondents’ icontextual iprofiles. iThis isection ifocuses ion ithe idemographic. i. profile iand iexperience iof ithe irespondent, iincluding igender, iage, irace, imarital istatus,. i. education, iand iincome.. Table i4.2: iRespondent iDemographic iProfile i– iGender Respondent’s iProfile. Frequency (N= i235). Percentage i(%). Male. 108. 46%. Female. 127. 54%. Total. 235. 100%. Source: iFieldwork iStudy i(2021) i 35. FYP FHPK. i.

(47) FYP FHPK. Percentage iof iRespondent’s iGender i. Figure i4.1: iPercentage iof iRespondent’s iGender. Table i4.2 idisplays icommon iof ithe irespondents iare ifemale iwith i54% i(n=127) i. related ito i46% i(n=108) iare imale. i. Table i4.3: iRespondent iDemographic iProfile i– iAge Respondent’s iAge. Frequency (N= i235). Percentage i(%). Below ithan i20 iyears iold. 30. 12.7%. 21-30 iyears iold. 142. 60.4%. 31-40 iyears iold. 43. 18.3%. 41-50 iyears iold. 13. 5.5%. 51-60 iyears iold. 6. 2.7%. Above i60 iyears iold. 1. 0.4%. Total. 235. 100%. Source: iFieldwork iStudy i(2021). 36.

(48) FYP FHPK. Percentage iof iRespondent’s iAge. Figure i4.2: iPercentage iof iRespondent’s iAge. In itable i4.3, irespondents iwho iresponded ito ithis isurvey iare iobscenely iaged i. between i21-30 iyears iold, iwith ia ifrequency iof i142 irespondents i(60.4%). iRespondents. i. below i20 iyears iold iobserve ithis iwith ithe ifrequency iof i30 irespondents i(12.7%), i31-40. i. years iold iwith ionly i43 irespondents i(18.3%), i41-50 iyears iold iwith i13 irespondents i(5.5%),. i. 51-60 iyears iold iwith i6 irespondents i(2.6%) iand iabove i60 iyears iold iwith i1 irespondent. i. (0.4%).. Table i4.4: iRespondent iDemographic iProfile i– iMarital iStatus Respondent’s iMarital iStatus. Frequency (N= i235). Percentage i(%). Single. 167. 71.1%. Married. 68. 28.9%. Total. 235. 100%. Source: iFieldwork iStudy i(2021). 37.

(49) FYP FHPK. Percentage iof iRespondent’s iMarital iStatus. Figure i4.3: iPercentage iof iRespondent’s iMarital iStatus. Table i4.4 ishows ithe ipercentage iof irespondent’s imarital istatus, iwhich imost iof ithe i. respondent’s imarital istatus iare isingle iwith i167 irespondents i(71.1%) iand ifollowed iby. i. respondent’s imarital istatus, iwhich iis imarried ito i68 irespondents i(28.9%).. Table i4.5: iRespondent iDemographic iProfile i– iIncome Respondent’s iIncome. Frequency (N= i235). Percentage i(%). Below iRM i2000. 109. 46.4%. RM i2001-3000. 64. 27.2%. RM i3001-4000. 37. 15.7%. RM4001-5000. 11. 4.6 i%. Above iRM i5000. 14. 6.1%. Total. 235. 100%. 38.

(50) FYP FHPK. Percentage iof iRespondent’s iIncome. Figure i4.4: iPercentage iof iRespondent’s iIncome. Based ion itable i4.5 ishows ithe iaverage iincome iof ithe irespondents. iMost iof ithe i. respondent’s iincome iis ibelow iRM i2000 iwith i109 irespondents i(46.4%), iRM i2001-3000. i. with i64 irespondents i(27.2 i%), ifollowed iby irespondents iwith iincome iabove iRM i5000. i. with i15 irespondents i(6.1%), ifor iincome iRM4001-5000 iare i11 irespondent i(4.6%) iand. i. lastly irespondent iwith iincome iRM i3001-4000 iwith i37 irespondents i(15.7%).. Table i4.6: iRespondent iDemographic iProfile i– iEducation Respondent’s iOccupation. Frequency (N= i235). Percentage i(%). PhD. 16. 6.8%. Master iDegree. 56. 23.8%. Bachelor’s iDegree. 71. 30.2%. Honours/Degree/ iSTPM. 29. 12.3%. Graduate iDiploma. 36. 15.3%. SPM. 27. 11.5%. Total. 235. 100%. 39.

(51) Figure i4.5: iPercentage iof iRespondent’s iEducation iStatus. Table i4.6 ishowed ithe ipercentage iof irespondent’s iEducation iwhich imost iof ithe i. respondents' iEducation iare iBachelor’s iDegree iwith i71 irespondents i(30.2%), ifollowed iby. i. respondent’s ieducation, iwhich iis iMaster iDegree iwith i56 irespondents i(23.8%).. i. Furthermore, irespondent’s ieducation iwhich iHonours/Degree/STPM, ihas i29 irespondent. i. (12.3%), iGraduate iDiploma iwith i36 irespondents i(15.3%), ifollowed iby irespondent’s. i. education iwhich iis iin iSPM iwith i27 irespondents i(11.5%). i. 4.4. RELIABILITY iTEST. The ireliability icoefficient iis ia imethod ifor idetermining ithe iinternal iaccuracy iof ia i. scale. iAs ia iresult, ithe idata iwas iexamined iusing ithe iCronbach’s iAlpha istudy ias ia iguide ito. i. determine ithe idegree iof iaccuracy. iCronbach’s iAlpha imust ibe igreater ithan i0.7 ifor iall. 40. FYP FHPK. Percentage iof iRespondent’s iEducation iStatus.

(52) variables. iTable i4.8 ibelow ishows ithe iRules iof iThumb iof iCronbach’s iAlpha iCoefficient. i. size iaccording ito iMatkar i(2012). i. Table i4.7: iRule iof iThumb iCronbach’s iAlpha Cronbach’s iAlpha. Internal iConsistency. 0.9 i≤ iα. Excellent. 0.8 i≤ iα i< i0.9. Good. 0.7 i≤ iα i< i0.8. Acceptable. 0.6 i≤ iα i< i0.7. Questionable. 0.5 i≤ iα i< i0.6. Poor. α i< i0.5. Unacceptable. Source: iMatkar i(2012). Table i4.8: iResult iof iReliability iCoefficient iAlpha ifor ithe iIndependent iVariable iand i. Dependent iVariable Number. Reliability iCronbach’s. Variable. Comment i. of iitems. i. Alpha. Cognitive irisk iperception. 4. 0.771. Acceptable. Affective irisk iperception. 4. 0.668. Questionable. Emotional irisk iperception. 5. 0.810. Good. Behavioural iintention itowards. 4. 0.824. Good. i. untact itourism iin iMalaysia.. Table i4.7 iof ithe iSPSS ifindings ishowed ithe iimportance iof iboth iindependent iand i. dependent ivariables iin ithis ianalysis. iAccording ito iTable i4.7, i2 iof ithe ivariables iwere iover 41. FYP FHPK. i.

(53) 0.800; imeanwhile, i1 iof ithe iother ivariables iwas iover i0.700 iand i0.600. iThe iquestionnaire. i. was iapproved, iand i4 iquestions iwere iused ito iaccess ithe icognitive irisk ivariable. iThe. i. Cronbach’s iAlpha iresult ifor ithe icognitive irisk ivariable iquestions iis i0.771 iand ihas ibeen. i. proven ito ibe iacceptable. iThe icoefficient iobtained ifor icognitive irisk ivariable iquestions. i. was ialso iaccurate. i. Other ithan ithat, ifor imeasuring ithe iaffective irisk ivariable, i4 iquestions iwere iused, i. and ithe iresult iof ithe iCronbach’s iAlpha iis i0.668, iwhich iindicated ias iquestionable. iHence,. i. the icoefficient iobtained ifor ithese iquestions iin ithe iaffective irisk ivariable iwas ireliable. i. Then, i5 iquestions iwere iused ito icalculate ithe iemotional irisk ivariable, iand ithe i. Cronbach’s iAlpha ioutcome iis i0.810, iwhich ialso iindicated ias igood. iThe icoefficient. i. obtained iin ithe iaesthetic ivariable ifor ithis iemotional irisk ivariable iwas iaccurate. i. Finally, i4 iquestions iwere iused ito icalculate ithe itourist’s iresponse ibehaviour i. variable itowards iuntact itourism, iand ithe iCronbach’s iAlpha ioutcome iwas i0.824, iwhich. i. was iindicated ias igood. iThe icoefficient iobtained ifor ithese iquestions iin ithe ibehaviour. i. towards iuntact itourism iresponse ivariable iwas ireliable. i. 4.5. DESCRIPTIVE iANALYSIS. Descriptive istatistics iare iused ito idescribe ithe ibasic icharacteristics iof idata iin i. research. iThey iprovide ia isimple isummary iof isamples iand imetrics. iTogether iwith isimple. 42. FYP FHPK. i.

(54) graphical ianalysis, ithey iform ithe ibasis iof ialmost iall iquantitative idata ianalysis. iThis istudy. i. analyses ithe imean iand istandard ideviation ifor iSection iB iand iSection iC iof ithe. i. questionnaires.. 4.5.1. OVERALL iMEAN iSCORE iFOR iVARIABLES. This isegment iinformation ishowed ithe imean iscore iattained ias iof ithe idescriptive i. analysis. iOverall imean iscore iand istandard ideviation iof ivariables iand isub-variables iwere. i. designed ibased ion i5 ipoints iLikert iscale i(1 i= istrongly idisagree, i2 i= idisagree, i3 i= ineutral,. i. 4 i= iagree iand i5 i= istrongly iagree). iThe ioverall imean i(M) iand istandard ideviation i(SD) ifor. i. each ivariable iand imeasurement iare iexposed ias iindicated iin iTable i4.9.. Table i4.8 ishowed ithat iindependent ivariables iverified ithe iaverage imean iscore i. (M=4.493, iSD=). iAltogether ithe idimension ivariables ialso iscored ian iaverage imean iscore. i. where icognitive irisk i17.97 i(SD=2.388), iaffective irisk i18.31 i(SD=1.895), iemotional irisk. i. 22.37 i(SD=2.921). iBesides, ithe idependent ivariable iverified ithe imiddle imean iscore. i. where ithe isub ivariable inamed ibehaviour iintention itoward iuntact itourism igained i17.65. i. (SD=2.626).. 43. FYP FHPK. i.

(55) SECTION. DIMENSION. N. M. SD. PART I1. Cognitive iRisk. 235. 4.56. 2.388. PART I2. Affective iRisk. 235. 4.70. 1.895. PART I3. Emotional iRisk. 235. 4.56. 2.921. PART I4. Behavioural iIntention. 235. 4.57. 2.626. i. Towards iUntact iTourism Source: iFieldwork istudy i(2021). 44. FYP FHPK. Table i4.9: iThe iOverall iMean iScore ion iEach iVariable iand iDimension.

(56) i. COGNITIVE. i. PERCEPTION. i. i. RISK,. i. AFFECTIVE. i. RISK. i. AND. i. EMOTIONAL. i. RISK. Table i4.10: iDescriptive iAnalysis ifor iIndependent iVariables i– iCognitive iRisk i. Perception. Source: iFieldwork istudy i(2021). Table i4.10 ishowed ithe inumber iof irespondents, ithe imean iand istandard ideviation i. of ithe ifirst iindependent ivariable i(IV), iand icognitive irisk iperception. iBased ion iTable i4.9,. i. cognitive irisk imakes iup ifour i(4) iquestions. iThe imean iscore iof ithe ifour i(4) iquestions iin. i. social icapital iranges ifrom i4.0 ito i4.64. iThe iquery iwith ithe ihighest i‘There iis ia ihigh. i. likelihood iof idying ifrom iCOVID-19’ i(M=4.56, iSD=0.704) ifollowed iby i‘There iis ia ihigh. i. likelihood iof iacquiring iCOVID-19 iin igeneral i’ i(M=4.50, iSD=0.764), i‘There iis ia ihigh. i. likelihood iof iacquiring iCOVID-19 icompared ito iother idiseases’ i(M=4.46, iSD=0.769), 45. FYP FHPK. 4.5.2 DESCRIPTIVE iANALYSIS iFOR iINDEPENDENT iVARIABLES i(IV).



Selain itu, kajian ini juga telah mengenalpasti purata pelajar menyelesaikan kursus sebelum tempoh COVID-19 adalah dalam masa 3 bulan manakala semasa tempoh COVID-19,

Impact of COVID-19 on Higher and Post-secondary Education Systems.. Imdad Ali Shah

This consensus statement is based on reviews of international guidelines on COVID-19 vaccination. Currently none of the authorized COVID-19 vaccines are live virus

As a significant risk factor for Covid-19 is inadequate PPE and Covid-19 risk factor among healthcare workers was exposure to infected patients, primarily through work

In this study, we examined the psychological perception of Kano people in relation to Covid-19 pandemic through a survey conducted in the metropolitan City of

Semua aktiviti dibenarkan kecuali Sila rujuk kepada perkara yang disenaraikan dalam Senarai Aktiviti yang Dilarang. SEKTOR PENGURUSAN SISA PEPEJAL (PEMBINAAN KEMUDAHAN

J: Sebenarnya dalam isu seperti wabak ini, perkara pertama yang perlu kita insafi adalah ia merupakan satu ujian daripada Allah SWT yang kami telah nyatakan bahawa ia boleh

Updated: 31st May 2022 CLINICAL MANAGEMENT OF CONFIRMED COVID-19 CASE IN ADULT AND PAEDIATRICA. Clinical Management of Confirmed COVID-19 Case

Exposure without appropriate PPE (including providing direct care for COVID-19 patients, working with health care workers infected with COVID-19, visiting patients,

i Thus, there is need for studying this subject, to add extra knowledge and urge to modify existing programmes to be supportive of the international students.

Q: What is the ruling for the fast of a person who has to undergo 165 COVID-19 test such as the nose swab test.. Is the

iIn ithe iseven-year ilongitudinal istudy iexamined ihow ichildren’s SFON, isubitizing ibased ienumeration, iand counting iskills iassessed iat ifive ior isix iyears ipredict

Artikel ini menghujahkan bahawa sungguhpun sekuritisasi Covid-19 di Malaysia tidak berjaya mengawal Covid-19 sepenuhnya dengan jumlah morbiditi dan kematian yang banyak serta

The study aimed to (i) to explore the understanding of the Malay senior citizens on health communication campaigns related to the COVID-19 vaccination

The discussion will be on the aimed of the research which to saw the effect of risk perception on intentions to travel during COVID-19 pandemic by using the independent variable

TOWARD NEW TRAVEL SOPs DURING COVID-19 PANDEMIC Based on the findings of the study, level of compliant among domestic tourist toward new travel SOPs during COVID-19 pandemic

From people singing and performing on balconies, mass online choirs to virtual bedside concerts for COVID-19 patients, music throughout the COVID-19 pandemic created a form

In conclusion, the COVID-ACLS training holds a beneficial purpose to all EHCW by building up confidence level in resuscitating a high-risk COVID -19 patient by teaching

This research used a dataset of positive and negative COVID -19 cases from various countries to develop supervised learning classification models for COVID -19 infection

Risk Velocity and Financial Markets Performance: Measuring the Early Effect of COVID-19 Pandemic on Major Stock Markets Performance.. International Journal of Economics and

Higher expression of A CE 2 and DPP 4 in hypertensive, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes patients promoted higher COVID -19 susceptibility, infectivity, and severity.. COVID

Islamic Finance and COVID-19 Recovery: The Role Profit-Loss Sharing Contract Kewangan Islam dan Pemulihan COVID-19: Peranan Kontrak Perkongsian Untung Rugi Aisyah Abdul-Rahman

Figure i21 iSurface irendering iand imulti imultiplanar irendering imethod This imethod ihas ithe isame ipipeline iwith iMethod i1 iSurface irendering iwhich iused ia surface